Mohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81540 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-479 Year-2019 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Mohit Kumar S/o- Shubh Kumar @ Shiv Kumar Resident of village- Jamalo Road Chandi Mai Asthan PS- Motihari Town, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Lallan Kumar Verma For the Opposite Party/s :
Mrs.Renu Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offence under Sections 363, 365, 370, 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Allegation against petitioner is that he alongwith others kidnapped two minor daughters of the informant while they were going to school.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of four days and there is no explanation for the same. The victim girls have already returned on 10.07.2029. He further submits that one co-accused namely Md. Parvej has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81540 of 2024(2) dt.24-01-2025 2/2 of this Court, vide order dated 24.01.2022 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 27481 of 2021 (Annexure - 3). Petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2024.
5. However, learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific allegation that he alongwith others have kidnapped the daughters of informant, which has been supported by the victim girls, in their statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Petitioner also cannot claim parity with the case of co-accused Md. Parvej, as from the F.I.R., it is apparent that this petitioner was very instrumental in kidnapping of victim girls and both victims were confined in the house of uncle (Fufa) of this petitioner.
6. Considering the same, the prayer for bail of petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay/- U T